Practitioner perspectives of multi-agency safeguarding hubs (MASH)

Purpose – The challenges of transferring the theoretical requirements of an effective multi-agency partnership into everyday practices are often overlooked, particularly within safeguarding practices. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to explore practitioner perspectives of working within a multi-agency safeguarding hub (MASH) and those factors that encourage or hinder a multi-agency approach to safeguarding vulnerable individuals. Design/methodology/approach – Semi-structured interviews with 23 practitioners from one MASH location in the North of England were conducted, with a thematic analysis being used to analyse findings. Findings – The interviews with practitioners illustrated the complexity of establishing a multi-agency approach to safeguarding. It was inferred that whilst information sharing and trust between agencies had improved, the absence of a common governance structure, unified management system, formalisation of practices and procedures and shared pool of resources limited the degree to which MASH could be considered a multi-agency approach to safeguarding. Practical implications – Establishing a multi-agency approach to safeguarding is complex and does not occur automatically. Rather, the transition to collaborative practices needs to be planned, with agreed practices and processes implemented from the beginning and reviewed regularly. Originality/value – Few studies have investigated the implementation of MASH into safeguarding practices, with this paper providing a unique insight into practitioner opinions regarding the transition to multi-agency practices. Whilst there is a focus on MASH, the challenges to arise from the research may be reflective of other multi-agency partnerships, providing a foundation for best practice to emerg

Transition pathways for young people with complex disabilities: exploring the economic consequences

Background: Disabled young people with complex needs face particular challenges when they reach adulthood and seek to move from school to employment or further education. There are potentially substantial personal and social costs arising from these challenges. Methods: We sought evidence from recent UK research, policy and related literatures; undertook exploratory statistical analyses of birth cohort data; and analysed information provided by 30 disabled young people requiring high levels of practical and communication support. Results: The personal, family and social costs that result from unsuccessful transition are substantial and wide-ranging. Health service and local authority expenditure are important elements, but do not allow young people to achieve the educational or employment goals to which they aspire, resulting in considerable costs for the state, whether through missing opportunities to contribute to the economy or through dependence on welfare benefits. Conclusions: The considerable sums currently spent on disabled children and young people are clearly not enough, or not deployed appropriately, to enable those who reach adulthood to fulfil their ambitions, or to meet government policy intentions for young people to achieve economic well-being